Tate v. Teague

Decision Date06 May 1983
Citation431 So.2d 1222
Parties11 Ed. Law Rep. 1117 Robert D. TATE, et al. v. Wayne TEAGUE, etc., et al. 81-510.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Charles A. Dauphin of Baxley, Beck & Dillard, Birmingham, for appellants.

Charles S. Coody and Jeffery A. Foshee, Montgomery, for appellees.

EMBRY, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs below, James E. Wilson and others, from the following judgment entered in behalf of Wayne Teague, State Superintendent of Education, and others:

"ORDER

"This is a class action filed by persons who are employed as faculty members of technical institutes which are under the control of the Alabama State Board of Education. Class representatives seek on behalf of themselves and the class which they represent entitlement to backpay for the 1977-78 school year. On July 23, 1980 this Court certified this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and directed the Plaintiffs to deliver a copy of a notice to all potential class members. The Court record reflects that no potential class member chose to opt out of the class. 1 On February 10, 1980 the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a count which sought relief based on an equal protection claim. This amendment was allowed by the Court. By agreement of Counsel for the parties, this matter was submitted to the Court on the basis of the pleadings, stipulated facts and briefs filed by the parties.

"The Plaintiffs' claim is premised on a provision of the 1977-78 Appropriations Act, Act No. 637, passed by the Alabama Legislature during the Regular Session of 1977. The portion of the Appropriations Act relied on reads as follows:

" 'The salary schedule for 1977-78 for vocational-technical colleges shall be adjusted by the State Board of Education to make it equal to the salary schedule of junior colleges for 1977-78 for appropriate ranks of certification.'

"In essence, the Plaintiffs claim that the Alabama State Board of Education failed to comply with the provisions of this legislative mandate contained in the Education Appropriations Act. Based on the pleadings the stipulation of facts, and the briefs of the parties, the Court now enters the following order.

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"1. During the 1976-77 school year, the salary schedule for presidents, deans, business managers and faculty members employed in junior colleges reflected higher salaries than the salary schedule for presidents, deans, business managers and faculty members employed in technical colleges.

"2. At this time there were four salary ranks for junior college presidents, deans and business managers and faculty members: (1) Rank I (master's degree); (2) Rank II (master's degree plus 30 additional graduate hours); (3) Rank III (master's degree plus 60 additional graduate hours); and (4) Rank IV (Ph.D). In the technical colleges the presidents, deans and business managers were not ranked. In the technical schools there were two faculty ranks: (1) Rank I (master's degree) and (2) Rank II (non-master's degree). In addition the salary schedule for presidents, deans and business managers of junior colleges and technical colleges was based on the size of the respective institution.

"3. The Education Appropriations Act (Act No. 637, Reg.Sess.1977) for the 1977-78 school year contained the following language at Section 1:

" 'There is hereby appropriated for the support of public education in Alabama for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978 and for the public debt, to be paid out of funds specified in subsection (a) of Section 2 of this Act, the amount specified in Section 3 to 7, inclusive.'

"At Section 3.A.19. the Act provided:

" 'For the operation and maintenance of the Vocational Technical Schools listed below, to be distributed in accordance with a formula adopted by the State Board of Education ... Of the amount appropriated above for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, the following salary increases shall be granted by ranks in addition to salary now received and all salary increments due to all full-time professional staff: Class B not less than one thousand five hundred seven dollars ($1,507) per annum; and Class A not less than one thousand six hundred sixty dollars ($1,660) per annum for twelve months employment. The salary schedule for 1977-78 for vocational-technical colleges shall be adjusted by the State Board of Education to make it equal to the salary schedule of junior colleges for 1977-78 for appropriate ranks of certificates. Personnel at vocational-technical colleges shall receive equity adjustments in their salary based on the new salary schedule in addition to the salary increases provided hereinabove.'

"4. Act No. 637 (Reg.Sess.1977) was approved by the Governor on May 20, 1977 with an effective date of October 1, 1977 (Section 17, Act No. 637 (Reg.Sess.)).

"5. On August 30, 1977 the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a salary schedule for all two-year postsecondary institutions under its control. At this time all Presidents were placed at the top of the salary schedule in accordance with the recommendation of the State Superintendent made on July 25, 1977.

"6. The August 30, 1977 resolution which adopted salary schedules for junior and technical college faculty established Ranks IV, III, II, I/A and I/B and C. Technical college faculty had only Ranks I/A and I/B available to them and their salaries were equivalent to the salary of junior college faculty at Ranks I/A and I/B.

"7. Also on August 30, 1977 the State Board of Education instructed the State Superintendent of Education to appoint a committee to develop certification standards for technical college instructors equivalent to Ranks II, III, and IV for the junior college faculty.

"8. On November 22, 1977 the State Board of Education approved faculty certification requirements for technical college faculty at Ranks II, III and IV.

"9. The November 22, 1977 resolution provided that qualified technical school faculty could be certified up to Rank II effective September 1, 1977 and up to Ranks III and IV effective September 1, 1978. Technical School faculty qualifying for Rank II during the 1977-78 school year were paid at Rank II for the full 1977-78 school year.

"10. On September 12, 1978 the State Board of Education approved retroactive salary increases for 1977-78 for those technical school faculty who qualified for Ranks III or IV on the condition that the salary increases legally could be funded from appropriations for the 1978-79 school year.

"11. On September 14, 1978 the attorney for the State Board of Education informed the State Superintendent of Education that the retroactive salary increase proposed by the State Board of Education on September 12, 1978 constitutionally was not permitted because the action of the Board would authorize expenditure of appropriations for a previous year's obligation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"12. The parties agree that the claim for backpay rests solely on an interpretation of the previously quoted provision of Act No. 637 (1977 Alabama Legislature, Regular Session). Thus the Court is confronted with a question of statutory interpretation. Of course, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect by the Court. Employees' Retirement System of Alabama v. Head, 369 So.2d 1227 (Ala.1979). However, where the meaning of a statute is not clear on its face, the Court must...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Ex parte Coker
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1990
    ...shall become law." Because the language of this provision is plain and unambiguous, we must apply the provision as written. Tate v. Teague, 431 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1983); Fuller v. Associates Commercial Corp., 389 So.2d 506 (Ala.1980); McGee v. Borom, 341 So.2d 141 Section 125 provides for a 10......
  • House v. Cullman County
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1992
    ...clear and unambiguous language will admit of no judicial construction. Ex parte Holladay, 466 So.2d 956 (Ala.1985); Tate v. Teague, 431 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1983). Thus, the only text requiring construction is that of Amendment 137, a narrow interpretation of which would inevitably invalidate Ac......
  • Hunt v. Hubbert
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1991
    ...Copper Co., supra, Ex parte Hayes, 405 So.2d 366 (Ala.1981), and that is consistent with related statutory provisions, see Tate v. Teague, 431 So.2d 1222 (Ala.1983)...." I cannot determine from the language of § 126 of the Constitution the intent of the framers of the Constitution in regard......
  • State Dep't of Revenue v. Coca–Cola Refreshments, U.S.A., Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 8, 2017
    ...Co., supra ; Ex parte Hayes, 405 So.2d 366 (Ala. 1981), and that is consistent with related statutory provisions, see Tate v. Teague, 431 So.2d 1222 (Ala. 1983) (" ‘The intention of the Legislature may be determined by examining the statute as a whole’ ") (quoting and adopting the trial cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT